Tags

, , , ,

 

Wikipedia

Is there anything more lame or pathetic then someone caught trying to edit their own Wikipedia page?  Seriously.  Well would any of you be surprised to know that James McGibney (who we don’t like) has been caught trying to edit his own Wikipedia page and gotten banned in the process?  No?  Not one of you??

On Wikipedia, the use of a second account, unless explicitly permitted by the rules, is a violation known to many as sock puppetry.  Wikipedia’s own definition describes a sockpuppet as “an online identity used for purposes of deception.” Using sockpuppets is a major sin on Wikipedia because it fundamentally undermines the encyclopedia’s credibility: The community ought to be self-governing, but if one user controls an army of automatons who parrot his or her opinion in every discussion, how can you trust any decision?

Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.  The term comes from sock puppet, an object shaped roughly like a sock and used on the hand to create a character to entertain or inform.  In Internet terminology it is an online identity used for deception.

sock puppets

Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account.  Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia.  While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed.

The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust.  It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts, a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock), and on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects, as well as the (potential) public exposure of any “real-world” activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sock puppetry or certain other abuses.

Such was the case at hand with the Wikipedia article about James McGibney, the man who runs the revenge porn / blackmail company called ViaView, which you can read right here if you want to:  Click on Me!

All of this started back around the end of November 2013 when some editor on Wikipedia added information about McGibney’s Chadwick University “degree” to the article on McGibney, using McGibney’s Bloomberg Business Week “biography” as a reference for supporting the edit.  About twelve hours later a user by the name of ViaView removed the Chadwick reference claiming that it was a “false entry.”  The original Wikipedia editor Dead Goldfish reversed the edit and replaced the Chadwick reference, and then added some other material related to the Kate Gosselin lawsuits Mc-Stupid was trying to instigate.  Additionally, Dead Goldfish removed the Harvard Executive Education references and Boston University references, with the stated reason being that they weren’t supported by the references or were self-promotion (which isn’t allowed under Wikipedia rules).

Edit history

At which point you can see where McGibney jumped in with his bombastic legal threats and such, along with his self-created army of sock puppets so as to get the article edited the way he wanted it to.  Said sock puppets being Ace Writer of Facts, Slingerville, and Bullyville.

Edit history 2

Because of the sharp eyes of Dead Goldfish, a Sock Puppet investigation was immediately launched and the contribution history and IP addresses for these accounts were fully examined by Wikipedia Administrators.

Sockpuppet investigation

Only a few people on Wikipedia are trusted with sockpuppet investigations.  Like forensic investigations in the real world, they tend to reveal the most sensitive information.  In this case, that means a Wikipedia user’s IP address, the unique number that identifies the computer network you use to connect to the Internet.  For any logged-in Wikipedia user, IP addresses are usually hidden.

The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that oversees Wikipedia and its sister sites, entrusts a small team of admins with the responsibility, but only after vetting them.  The organization then runs a tool called CheckUser.  This checks the IP addresses of all the accounts, but it also inspects a number of other markers you leave behind whenever you visit a website.  A trained expert can tell what browser you viewed the page with, what operating system your computer runs on, and even whether you’ve updated to the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.

In a sockpuppet investigation, the goal of the CheckUser is not only to determine if multiple Wikipedia editors were writing from the same IP address, but from the same exact computer.

 

The whole thing finally came to an end when a Senior Administrator on Wikipedia “locked” the article (called Protecting it) and banned McGibney’s sock puppets so as to prevent further editing by James McGibney.

ViaViewViaView #2

Here are some more of McGibney’s sock puppets.  As you can see, they were ALL created at the same time and for the express purpose of trying to edit his own Wikipedia article.

Slingerville #2Slingerville

Bullyville account #2Bullyville account

Ace Writer of FactsAce Writer of Facts user contributions

Interestingly enough, but totally not surprising, the McGibney article was created by a single use account named Eceewriter.  It was then lengthened and edited by other single use accounts, such as  Just Jared C, Kulture Kidd, and The Yam Mann – clearly all of which were McGibney sock accounts.

Eceewriter contributionsKulturekidd user contributionsJustJaredC user contributionsTheYamMan user contributions

 

As a result of all this extra scrutiny on the James McGibney Wikipedia article, the article itself has been greatly trimmed back from how it originally looked before Dead Goldfish and other eagle-eyed Wikipedians started to take a look at it.

Here is how the article looked in November 2013.

McGibney Article Nov 2013_Page_1McGibney Article Nov 2013_Page_2

And this is how the article looks today in July 2014.  Please note the size difference after Dead Goldfish and other Wikipedia editors removed all the bogus materials.

McGibney Article July 2014

For course, the next entry into McGibney’s article will be inclusion of information relating to all of the LOLsuits that McGibney has recently filed, as well as information regarding the outcome of the anti-SLAPP motion filed in the Texas case.

 

We hope that YOU, our teeming MILLIONS of readers, listeners, and supporters, will keep a sharp eye on the McGibney Wikipedia article over the next few weeks as we strongly suspect an avalanche of nerd rage and repeated attempts at editing the McGibney article to add more bogus claims.  As you will notice, the most recent change to the article involved the removal of McGibney’s BULLSHIT (to use a legal term we learned at phlebotomy school) related to McGibney’s Stolen Valor FAKE medal claims!  El Oh El, Mc-Stupid.

We certainly hope that @CattyIdiot and the rest of the McGibney disciples will finally realize that, no matter how much they nerd rage on Twitter and elsewhere, McGibney & ViaView aren’t coming back.  No more advertisers.  No more celebrity endorsements.  No more TV shows or media interviews about your FAKE anti-bullying activities.  No more investors.  No more nothing!

We state categorically and affirmatively:  James Alex McGibney is GUILTY of committing FELONY PERJURY and he is GUILTY of running a revenge porn & blackmail company.  Seriously.  100% VERIFIED.

 

 

 

For years James McGibney and his revenge porn / blackmail company ViaView have sought the spotlight.  But McGibney needs to remember something very, very important:  For a man in his position, the spotlight can turn into an interrogation lamp pretty damn fast!

interogation-flickr-650

 

p.s.

Many thanks to all of you who voted in our poll and answered the question:  Is James McGibney a Pedophile?  We hope that those of you who haven’t voted, will please do so.  And to those who have voted, please go back and vote some more!

Results as of July 3, 2014, at 0800 hrs GMT.

Results as of July 3, 2014, at 0800 hrs GMT.